When I reviewed “Cats and Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore” last month, I had no idea that I was sitting in a PG movie — at least by Swedish standards. The movie’s concept was simple enough for a toddler. In fact, I’m not sure if anyone over the age of 4 would actually appreciate that movie.
While I generally don’t check the ratings on films with talking animals, the folks at Cinematical say that the Board of Film Censors slapped a PG rating on the 3D version in Sweden, while the non-3D got the appropriate G. The sensors gave the movie that extra ratings boost because of the effects of the 3D on younger audiences.
“We had two teams watching the 2D and 3D versions,” said Board of Film Censors CEO Anki Dahlin. “Those who saw the 2D version did not experience the effects as strongly as those who saw them in 3D. The 3D effects were difficult for a 4-year-old to handle.”
This brings us to an interesting question: Should 3D movies get a higher rating than non-3D movies?
Of course, there are no studies to back up the claim that 3D will give kids headaches or a renewed faith in the Boogyman. At least there are no studies yet. The more interesting study, however, would be the effects that these differences have on box-office receipts.
As far as someone looking out for the well-being of the children, let’s forget the twitchy eye and kitty fur flying from the screen for a minute. In my own experience, it’s hard enough to get a 4-year-old to watch a movie. The same could be said for his attention-span with those sunglasses that he just had to have — and those have Mickey Mouse on them. Until those two things become less of a chore, I can’t see paying a premium to have my kid poking me through a 90-minute movie.
Also, it’s unacceptable to leave your kid in the car unattended. Who is dropping them off with a $20 in front of the movie theater?
Do you think the ratings system is justified or does it even matter?